|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron StrifeSilver (Annabelle at Tumblr). Thank you very much! |
|
![[0772] Impossible Beauty Standards](/comics/2016-03-28-0772-impossible-beauty-standards.png "[0772] Impossible Beauty Standards")
- Larisa: We live in dire times. Once again, Hollywood is ramming its impossible beauty standards down the throats of girls and women everywhere!
- Larisa: I mean, how could any real woman ever compete with…
- Larisa: … this?!!
- Larisa: Sigh, I’d die for ears like that!
|
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
Somebody please tell me that picture doesn’t really appear in Zootopia. I was just convincing myself to give that movie a try before I saw this strip.
Sadly what Larisa said is correct, I’ve been corrupted by Hollywood standards of beauty. BUT NOT FURRY STANDARDS!
Oh yeah, FIRST!!!
So deep down, Larisa is a furry?
And, Andy, nothing like that shot. It is a “kiddie” movie (but not a musical) with lots of visual gags for the adults.
I was half-expecting for her to show us Gazelle.
I think Larisa will be a very nice bunny girl in a couple of years.
@ Andy Wong:
Um, what do you mean by the picture being in the movie? It’s just a picture of Hops standing with her arms crossed. I can’t remember if she makes that specific pose or not, but even if she does, why is that a reason not to watch it? Or if you think she’s wearing her vest but not her shirt undeneath it, she probably is supposed to be wearing her shirt, it’s just hard to tell since the comic is in black and white.
BWAH HAW HAW HAW! 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
I just saw this movie today, and although this is meant as a joke, Ms Hopps was incredibly adorable, seemingly to the utmost of the animators’ art.
We already know Larisa can break the 4th wall (with an axe, to be specific). So I am surprised she didn’t ask/axe the artist for bunny years (:
@ MaxArt:
No, she’ll be blind, then dead.
Okay, all I’ve seen is the TV trailers, but am I the only one who thinks Zootopia looks like a gender-bent ‘Kevin and Kell’?
That was a awesome freaking movie. The trailers do NOT do it justice.
@ Aldin:
Also themes on fascism, kidnapping… oh, and there’s a drug lab! Seriously, don’t do what the trailers did, this film’s way more intense than you make it out to be, and way more awesome.
@ nicktyrong:
Racism, not fascism… did autocorrect do that?
Zootopia is 100% worth watching, it is a superb movie. I went to see it by myself then again with my little sister. You are missing out if you don’t go and watch it. For me it easily made my top 3 of all kids movies; I am unsure if it takes the number 1 spot above The Lion King or sits in 2nd behind it. However Novil I think you are looking too much into it and are trying to make a ship between characters out of nothing. I thought the same thing at first but I think it was more a friendly/slightly flirty banter between great friends. We will have to wait for the second movie to find out 😉
The whole world does that. No woman will ever be as adorable as a kitten jumping into a box, or as beautiful as the graphics in the Unreal Engine 4. They won’t be able to speak as beautifully as a good book or poem, or be extraordinarily clever as often as MacGyver. What they can do is enjoy all of these things with you, and that’s all I really care about.
Oh, and they can have sex.
Whatever you do, do not search for “Judy Hopps Rule 43″…just searching for “Officer Hopps” comes up with lots of Rule 43 stuff.
@ Mina:
I believe the term is rule 34, and that was happening WAY before the movie came out, or so I’ve heard.
@ nicktyrong:
I was trying to be “spoiler free”. (chuckle) Saw it twice. Well worth seeing it in 3D. Not gimmicky like some 3D toon flicks. I thought I could reach out and touch the characters, though I’d wind-up with assult charges against me, I suppose.
@ Andy Wong:
What’s wrong with anthropomorphic animals?
@ Mount C:
I think what he means is that he doesn’t like furries.
Sorry for going on a tangent here….but:
The problem is that movies are about escapism. We want to see highlighted exaggerations of our world such as stunning landscapes or attractive people. When these standards are not being used, it’s often to derive comedy or simply break the mold of traditional film aspects to make a movie unique. So, yes, it is unfair to have our society be judged based on the unrealistic guidelines set by film. But it is society that needs to change its parallelistic view towards movies, not movies that need to change their depictions of society. Because, at the end of the day, we want to watch something extraordinary we cannot see in our own lives. We cannot fault filmmakers for presenting what audiences want to see.
Otherwise, love the joke and the sketch here. Not sure what to make of Larisa’s fixation, though.
LOL! Knowing Larisa, she would!
Be careful Larisa, you’re letting your fur nature show!
Apropos to nothing, was any part of Zootopia made in California, much less Hollywood?
I would give anything for cat ears and a tail…
@ Aldin:
I agree with the 3D statement. I saw none of the issues I typically see with 3D movies, and the world is immersive enough in 2D that the 3D really enhances that. Also, there’s LOTS of difference in scale that the 3D also enhances.
She is just so darn cute….
An awesome movie. Great drawing of her. Im so impressed.
@ MaxArt:
You mean in a couple of ears.
@ Andy Wong:
I do know for the most part she’s in full uniform, so there’d be a cop uniform under the armor. The animals are pretty diligent on wearing pants.
@ An Cat Dubh:
oh yeah. her illness. Thanks for reminding me. I’ll go cry in that corner over there
@ Bizkit:
Then why the Hell would he have wanted to watch a movie where every character is an anthropomorphic animal in the first place?! He said he wanted to watch the movie before he saw this. Did he somehow not realize what the characters looked like until then?
Zootopia is not a furry movie… I’m not really sure what a furry movie is since my definition on ‘furry’ is generally, people who identify themselves as animals, though I am aware that that is a very loose and probably most g rated definition. The term and definition itself is, I feel, very difficult to define, as it will vary from group to group, even within said group ( to say nothing of people and media outside the defined group).
In my opinion, the main problem with peoples knee jerk reaction of rejection to movies such as Zootopia as being furry, is that humans are very complex.
Many people will look at a real life bunny, puppy, or other animal and say, “awwww, cute” and want to pick it up and cuddle it. This is not wrong, it is generally a natural instinct to want to protect cute things such as babies.
So thinking that Judy Hopps is cute, is normal.
The problem comes with the secondary sexual characteristics. As humans, we are programmed to recognise these aspects on other humans, and feel attracted to them.
Judy may be an anthropomorphic rabbit, but she retains enough of a human body to, confuse the brain.
When added with the above instinct of “awww, cute”, this can get very confusing. Especially when society is generally “big NO” on bestiality.
In my opinion, any perceived attraction is merely the result of the above points, and I would not consider anyone who has a passing attraction to Judy Hopps to be ‘furry’, not that I fully understand what that means. Judy is anthologised/humanised enough that for all intents and purposes, you may as well be attracted to any other animated human female, ears may as well be just stylised hair.
I am not a professional in any of this, this is just my opinion based on narrow observation, you may argue, and try to change my mind with logical argue menus, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Thisguy.
When suddenly all those earlobe lengtheners have their origin point revealed: To give hummans floppy bunny ears, one ring size at a time.
Crestlinger wrote:
To get Bunny Ears, you wouldn’t lengthen the Lobes.
You’d have to stretch the Tops.
She’s not just Drawn that way.
She really is “Bad”.
Zootopia the movie that birthed a new generation of furies.
Thisguy wrote:
Hi Thisguy,
U sure you’re not a psychologist or studying to be one? Because you pretty much nailed it in the head at least in regards to me. The whole confusing sexual overtones clashing with “awww cuteness” reaction creates massive contradiction in my brain.
Anyway, I think I better see the movie to settle my personal opinion once and for all.
Once again all, please note this is only my personal opinion, not to degrade anyone who thinks the movie is awesome. But that’s my kneejerk reaction.
Thisguy wrote:
I think you’re getting a little confused about furries there. Someone who identifies as an animal or believes they are part animal/have an animal spirit is a therian (this could have lots of inaccuracies, I don’t know that much about them); the loose, general consensus for a definition of a furry as far as I’ve seen is someone who likes the concept of anthropomorphic animals or anthropomorphic art and explicitly identifies as a furry, though there is a fair amount of overlap between the two. Furries do tend to have ‘fursonas’, but anime enthusiasts create characters for themselves to identify as as well; that doesn’t mean they believe they are that character or have that character’s spirit. In both fandoms, they are primarily for purposes of role-play and cosplay, though custom characters are /much/ more common in the furry fandom than in the anime fandom.
Your comment on g-ratedness leads me to believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that furries are not g-rated. While this is true for some, it’s not for others; like any other subculture, it has a huge variety of people with a huge variety of views, and that’s more a product of human nature than anthropomorphic interests. If you look at the anime fandom, you’ll find a similar situation.
Other than that, I think you’re spot on. Your assessment of social acceptability of attraction to anthropomorphic characters is shared by the furry community from what I’ve seen; a 2015 survey of furry congoers found that the percentage of furries that found bestiality acceptable was within the margin of error of the results of a similar survey administers to the general populace.
Thank you for your well-thought-out comment. Please feel free to correct any mistakes I’ve made.
(I might possibly hang out with furries on IRC too much >.>)
@ crystalclaw:
Paragraph 1, sentence 3: “…themselves to identify as as well; that doesn’t…” One if those “as”s are unnecessary. I thank you for the freedom to correct you.
My few Furry friends don’t seem to show any rave about Zootopia, so I can’t really give my opinion on the movie, especially not without seeing it. It would be weird at first for Larisa to turn into a Furry, but I think I’d get used to it.
Come join the Fur side:
Our women are especially cuddly after a good shampooing.
@ Greywolf9:
Pretend I inserted a comma in between them; that’s what I meant to do, but it didn’t seem right until I re-read it just now. Thanks for the correction.
I’m not exactly raving about zootopia either, but I thought it was pretty darn good. Perceptions (and how people react to things) vary.
I agree, Larisa being a furry would be a weird but interesting turn of events, mostly just because it’s unexpected in my case.
Xuncu wrote:
I was drinking milk and reading that made me shoot it out of my nostrils. Thanks for that. Now I have this mess to clean up.
@ crystalclaw: Thank you for your kind response.
You are correct, I am a bit confused about the definition of furry’s. Which actually helps prove my point that few people outside the furry community actually understands what a furry is. So, thank you for enlightening me.
I personally do not believe that furries are exclusively ‘non g-rated’ (I was perhaps not as clear as I could have been), though, due to lack of knowledge, and improper representation, there are many people who may think this. In truth, as you said, there are many different views in human subcultures, so while this view may , as you said, be true for some, it is most defiantly not true for all.
like nearly all human subcultures, there are those with varying views.
By your definition, I, as an amateur appreciator of anthropomorphic art and movies, may be considered a Furry, though I would not call myself as such because I do not like the word, it’s an adjective, not a noun…. I also dislike describing myself using words which do not have a crystal clear definition, least people make assumptions of me using incorrect information… Not that people won’t do that anyway but… I may have extended my logic quota for today, people do not have to be logic, or smart, or stupid or right, or wrong, all the time. Humans are complex, that’s the great thing about being human.
@ Charlie Spencer:
I took my kids to see it a few weeks ago. It is a GREAT movie, with some decent lessons in it as well (mainly about living up to your true potential and not giving in to stereotypes). I plan to add it to my DVD collection when it comes out on video.
Remember Larisa: to look like a Disney character you must live in a Disney world.
In this world, Larisa, There Is No Fire.
Choose wisely: fire or furry?
@Thisguy @crystalclaw
Love the discussion~
As one who does identify as a furry, allow me to give a bit more clarity.
As mentioned, a furry (noun) is simply someone who has an affinity for anthropomorphic things. Those things by definition could be anything given some sort of human characteristic, but in this case, it is most commonly animals. It can be to various degrees of human traits as well, from a realistic animal that can talk to a being with a very humanoid anatomy. There is a bit of a, pardon the pun, fuzzy area here, as perspectives differ; if you see something and think “that’s a human with -blank-“, it’s more common that it isn’t considered furry (an adjective that broadens the true definition due to the context, but a reasonably well understood one).
The affinity for anthropomorphic things can also have various depths. On the light end, this can mean someone who just likes the look or concept of anthro things. On the deep end, this can mean you believe you are an animal trapped in a human body. If you fall anywhere in between, you can be considered a furry.
As also noted, this broad definition encompasses large variety of people with different types of interests. Those who love to create anthropomorphic content, and those who only want to consume it. Those who abhore sexual things, and those to love indulging in them. Those interests are at about the same level when compared to the general population. However, the furry fandom tends to consist of a higher rate of young adults and males, based on demographic surveys.
What causes one to have affinity for anthropomorphic things isn’t quite my forte, but I feel the views mentioned previously are on the right track. I personally wouldn’t go as far as saying the brain gets confused by conflicting signals, rather it recognizes familiar traits and treats the subject as a conscious, intelligent, and relate-able being. In this sense, it does not matter if the subject is a cute bunny girl or a murderous wolf; if you can recognize some form of “humanity”, you will regard it similarly.
As for the public’s perception of a furry, it’s most common that someone either has absolutely no idea what that means or has an incorrect notion of what it means, often influenced by media portraying furries in general as sexual deviants. Better understanding and portrayal is slowly becoming more normal, but there still is a social stigma about the term. I personally like the term since it’s much easier to say than a full explanation, and it is the most generally recognized one. It is the furry communities hope that the stigma goes away; nobody should fear the label, and many of us who identify as one don it proudly.
This has been Furry 101. In summary, a furry, simply put, is someone who likes the concept of non-human being or objects portraying human characteristics. If that sounds like you, feel free to wear the title and educate those around you~
Join us, many of us don’t bite (much)~
Now, more on topic: Yes, Larissa, you’d be too adorable with them >w<
@ NinSonNar:
Pardon the typos >3<
@ Xuncu:
Once you get over the smell of wet fur, that is.
I would like to mention one pretty important thing about animated “furry” characters: the difference between animated and “live” (or photorealistic) is bigger than difference between animated human characters and animated anthropomorphic animals. Yet we recognize animated humans as humans – partly because they were drawn in way to make that work, partly because how brain recognizes objects, partly because we are trained to from young age. So, feeling attracted to animated anthropomorphic animal is nowhere near as weird as it sounds, if you also feel attracted to animated humans (and don’t consider that weird).